All things Labour Party

[Jonnyboy]

The reality is that Corbyn is a flea-bitten sheep's carcass concealing the wolf's internal organs of John "ballot, bullet and bomb" McDonnell, Diane "Mao did more good than bad" Abbott and Ken "Iraq has made all Muslims bombers" Livingstone.

 

As Bertrand Russell once said, as if with Corbynists in mind: "Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them."

 

So Corbyn must be a genius then?

[buctootim]

So Corbyn must be a genius then?

 

That, or Verbal is being dishonest

[Jonnyboy]

That, or Verbal is being dishonest

 

He must think we're stupid!

[buctootim]

He must think we're stupid!

 

Only by comparison. He's even more brilliant than nature made him!

[shurlock]

Verbal, the m**gboard's very own Nick Cohen. Do you have a drink problem to match?

[Winnersaint]

So you agree, no great changes. Far too many are employed by the public sector anyway.

 

The status of my place of work is about to change, Effectively out of the public sector. The benefits to those who really matter will be enormous, and that has to be a good thing.

[Verbal]

According to the citizen-journalists of Raqqa is being Slaughtered Silently, the city is now being carpet-bombed with incendiary or cluster bombs, it seems by the Russians. Among the dead are children from a school.

 

There's never been a better time for Corbyn to a policy of intervention that includes no-fly zones and that places the protection of Syrian civilians as a top priority. Will he? Of course not.

[buctootim]

According to the citizen-journalists of Raqqa is being Slaughtered Silently, the city is now being carpet-bombed with incendiary or cluster bombs, it seems by the Russians.

 

I thought thats what you wanted. Surely anyone who suggested bombing Syria even more wasn't the answer is just a sad hard lefty who doesnt understand global politics.

 

Precision strikes with no collateral damage are usually a myth, even with conventional armed forces. Cell structure based terrorist groups like IS dont operate from big bases which make nice big easy targets but instead from houses within civilian areas. Add that to the lack of intelligence about exactly where IS are (because anyone who informs is tortured and dies) then the only aerial option is carpet bombing.

 

Corbyn is wrong about many things but arguing against bombing civilian populations is not one of them. Never more so than now. We ended up in Iraq and up to 1 million dead because of 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction, despite Iraq having nothing to do with either. Lets not kill more civilians in Syria because of Paris.

Edited 28 November, 2015 by buctootim

[aintforever]

I expect Turkey shooting down the Russian plane means Putin will go ape-**** on anyone opposed to Assad. I doubt it will take long for Assad to have full control of Syria again.

[buctootim]

I expect Turkey shooting down the Russian plane means Putin will go ape-**** on anyone opposed to Assad. I doubt it will take long for Assad to have full control of Syria again.

 

Maybe thats no bad thing. They were never going to have a free and fair government which respected all factions - Libya is proof of what happens when you take down a government and leave nothing in place. Best you can hope for is that the **** who governs Syria is better than IS, and Assad is.

[aintforever]

I thought thats what you wanted. Surely anyone who suggested bombing Syria even more wasn't the answer is just a sad hard lefty who doesnt understand global politics.

 

Precision strikes with no collateral damage are usually a myth, even with conventional armed forces. Cell structure based terrorist groups like IS dont operate from big bases which make nice big easy targets but instead from houses within civilian areas. Add that to the lack of intelligence about exactly where IS are (because anyone who informs is tortured and dies) then the only option is carpet bombing.

 

Corbyn is wrong about many things but arguing against bombing civilian populations is not one of them. Never more so than now. We ended up in Iraq and up to 1 million dead because of 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction, despite Iraq having nothing to do with either. Lets not kill more civilians in Syria because of Paris.

 

This. Blowing the **** out of buildings and vehicles looks great on TV and keeps the voters happy but you can guarantee that every time something gets bombed IS are sat watch from a house nearby laughing their ****** off. Anyone manning a checkpoint is probably so poor local sod who doesn't even have a clue or choice - ends up getting fried by a drone.

 

The only way air strikes will work is as close air support for Kurdish troops with the help of agents on the ground.

[Coxford_lou]

I thought thats what you wanted. Surely anyone who suggested bombing Syria even more wasn't the answer is just a sad hard lefty who doesnt understand global politics.

 

Precision strikes with no collateral damage are usually a myth, even with conventional armed forces. Cell structure based terrorist groups like IS dont operate from big bases which make nice big easy targets but instead from houses within civilian areas. Add that to the lack of intelligence about exactly where IS are (because anyone who informs is tortured and dies) then the only aerial option is carpet bombing.

 

Corbyn is wrong about many things but arguing against bombing civilian populations is not one of them. Never more so than now. We ended up in Iraq and up to 1 million dead because of 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction, despite Iraq having nothing to do with either. Lets not kill more civilians in Syria because of Paris.

 

The accounts from civilians on the ground are that both Assad and the Russians are intentionally carpet bombing civilian areas that oppose the Assasd regime. This isn't the same as precision bombing gone wrong, both in intentions and results.

 

Besides, I believe Verbal supports a no fly zone.

[buctootim]

The accounts from civilians on the ground are that both Assad and the Russians are intentionally carpet bombing civilian areas that oppose the Assasd regime. This isn't the same as precision bombing gone wrong, both in intentions and results.

 

Besides, I believe Verbal supports a no fly zone.

 

That was my exact point. Without accurate intelligence you dont have pinpoint targets - all you can do from the air is bomb general opposition controlled areas. If Verbal supports a no fly zone why is he attacking Corbyn for not wanting to send in the bombers?

Edited 28 November, 2015 by buctootim

[Coxford_lou]

That was my exact point. Without accurate intelligence you dont have pinpoint targets - all you can do from the air is bomb general opposition controlled areas. If Verbal supports a no fly zone why is he attacking Corbyn for not wanting to send in the bombers?

 

According to reports on the ground, that doesn't appear to be happening when the coalition are involved, at least not to the extent you're describing. They appear to have the intelligence to bomb specific targets. The indiscriminate carpet bombing is repeatedly reported to be coming from the Russians and Assad.

 

I can't answer for Verbal, but certainly I'm looking for the Labour Party to have a proactive humanitarian focussed policy on Syria, to make sure the Tories don't just look after our own interests, but also the long term stability of Syria. I'm not seeing that from Corbyn. Maybe it's still to come.

[Verbal]

I thought thats what you wanted. Surely anyone who suggested bombing Syria even more wasn't the answer is just a sad hard lefty who doesnt understand global politics.

 

Precision strikes with no collateral damage are usually a myth, even with conventional armed forces. Cell structure based terrorist groups like IS dont operate from big bases which make nice big easy targets but instead from houses within civilian areas. Add that to the lack of intelligence about exactly where IS are (because anyone who informs is tortured and dies) then the only aerial option is carpet bombing.

 

Corbyn is wrong about many things but arguing against bombing civilian populations is not one of them. Never more so than now. We ended up in Iraq and up to 1 million dead because of 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction, despite Iraq having nothing to do with either. Lets not kill more civilians in Syria because of Paris.

 

You "thought that was what I wanted"? What is wrong with you?

 

Protection of civilians should be a Corbyn priority. It isn't. The arch-Corbynite Diane Abbott, for example, just laughs in Syrian civilians' faces. Here's a nice little video of her doing exactly that, very publicly:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_LKwMJnT1g

 

The precision of modern guided missiles is, by the way, far greater than the tactic for example adopted by the Americans of dropping bombs from B52s at high altitude during the dislodging of the Taliban regime in 2002. It would be ignorant to deny that munitions are now more precise, just as it is wrong the claim that precision weapons do not kill civilians. They do - though not on the scale of the casualties of carpet bombing. It is also obvious to anyone following events there that, regardless of the risks, there is considerable ground-based intelligence being fed to Western military sources.

 

The issue of whether or not to take military action is far more complex than "let's bomb" vs "let's not bomb". As I say, Corbyn rejected the idea of stopping the genocide in Bosnia and the massacres in Kosovo with military intervention. Faced with the same choice over Kobani, my strong hunch is he'd do exactly the same and refuse intervention by air to support their ground forces.

 

Corbyn's position is a mealy-mouthed pacifism - selectively deployed to the West, and poorly articulated. Worse than that, he is an apologist for dictators in general and Putin in particular. Plenty of examples here from a fellow-traveller on the far-Left:

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/james-bloodworth-left-wing-case-against-comrade-jeremy-corbyn-1513969

 

Corbyn won't lift a finger to support civilians under a hail of cluster of incendiary bombs, as long as it's from Putin; nor will he nor his acolytes pay any attention to emerging civilian groups in Syria asking the West to help by protecting civilian areas.

 

You might find it educative to read through some of Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently journalism. Here are links to their website and twitter feed:

 

http://www.raqqa-sl.com/en/

 

https://twitter.com/Raqqa_Sl

[buctootim]

According to reports on the ground, that doesn't appear to be happening when the coalition are involved, at least not to the extent you're describing. They appear to have the intelligence to bomb specific targets. The indiscriminate carpet bombing is repeatedly reported to be coming from the Russians and Assad

 

...I'm looking for the Labour Party to have a proactive humanitarian focussed policy on Syria

 

But the coalition have been by and large bombing only when they have specific targets which can be destroyed without massive collateral damage - and the result is a relatively low level of activity which has been ineffective in stopping IS. The Russians are bombing massively, much more indescriminately and apparently being effective. Which is better? destroying IS and in the process destroying much of the population and the infrastructure they need to live - or bombing at a low level which allows IS to advance and perpetuate their murderous ideology? Surely neither is the answer.

[Coxford_lou]

But the coalition have been by and large bombing only when they have specific targets which can be destroyed without massive collateral damage - and the result is a relatively low level of activity which has been ineffective in stopping IS. The Russians are bombing massively, much more indescriminately and apparently being effective. Which is better? destroying IS and in the process destroying much of the population and the infrastructure they need to live - or bombing at a low level which allows IS to advance and perpetuate their murderous ideology? Surely neither is the answer.

 

Who has defined Russian tactics as being apparently more effective? If these are reports you've seen I'd been interested in reading them. In the main, all I've seen are countless reports of Russia not going after Daesh, but instead the opponents of Assad. And certainly, reports from civilian journalists, is that most deaths are a consequence government bombing and more recently, Russian bombing. That's government bombing their own people.

 

It's always hard to know who to trust on the Internet, but there are so many consistent reports coming out of the country, you just can't ignore them. Here's a plea from Planet Syria to Seamus Milne:

http://on.planetsyria.org/seamus-milne-are-you-serious/

 

The ISIS attack on Paris has added another layer of complexity to the issue. All of a sudden the the West is interested in Syria, but the focus is on ISIS, not the Syrian Goverment atrocities. I hope the Tories won't just take a bomb ISIS and be done with it strategy, and that's certainly not what Cameron is describing, but none the less, we need the progressive, internationalist Labour Party to be on their backs to make sure that's not the case. Instead we have Corbyn doing nothing.

 

This has to work. This has too much world significance. We have to have all heads round the table making sure it can work and that we do it in the right way. Rather than just bailing or playing stupid funny games with the rest of the party, or standing by meaningless 'principles'.

[Jonnyboy]

But the coalition have been by and large bombing only when they have specific targets which can be destroyed without massive collateral damage - and the result is a relatively low level of activity which has been ineffective in stopping IS. The Russians are bombing massively, much more indescriminately and apparently being effective. Which is better? destroying IS and in the process destroying much of the population and the infrastructure they need to live - or bombing at a low level which allows IS to advance and perpetuate their murderous ideology? Surely neither is the answer.

 

Not including the 50,000 odd strikes by the US in Iraq in the last 18 months or so. Obviously no civilians whatsoever have been harmed here.

[Batman]

I see Labour have changed under a new progressive corbyn leadership

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339241/Fury-Labour-s-segregated-rally-Sexism-row-men-women-segregated-party-rally-ahead-key-election.html

[buctootim]

Who has defined Russian tactics as being apparently more effective? If these are reports you've seen I'd been interested in reading them.

 

Well its only RT so who knows how accurate it is. However their claims of success are much bigger than the Americans claims of success - 1,000 oil tankers, 600 ID dead in one raid etc.

https://www.rt.com/news/322881-russia-cruise-missiles-isis/

https://www.rt.com/news/323065-syria-airstrikes-terrorists-russia/

 

The ISIS attack on Paris has added another layer of complexity to the issue. All of a sudden the the West is interested in Syria, but the focus is on ISIS, not the Syrian Goverment atrocities. I hope the Tories won't just take a bomb ISIS and be done with it strategy, and that's certainly not what Cameron is describing, but none the less, we need the progressive, internationalist Labour Party to be on their backs to make sure that's not the case. Instead we have Corbyn doing nothing.

 

This has to work. This has too much world significance. We have to have all heads round the table making sure it can work and that we do it in the right way. Rather than just bailing or playing stupid funny games with the rest of the party, or standing by meaningless 'principles'.

 

The worst of all worlds is massive bombing which leaves all government systems shattered, essential infrastructure such as roads, water, sewage and electricity destroyed and the skilled middle class who have the money to leave abandoning the country so its impossible to rebuild.

 

The only real option I see is some kind of agreement with Assad that he steps down in 10 years time and in the meantime passes legislation to allow development of free political parties and civil society, a robust constitution and fair elections based on proportional representation. Above all there needs to be billions for reconstruction, something which always seems to be difficult for countries that could find the money for bombs.

...

[Lord Duckhunter]

I see Labour have changed under a new progressive corbyn leadership

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3339241/Fury-Labour-s-segregated-rally-Sexism-row-men-women-segregated-party-rally-ahead-key-election.html

 

Can you imagine the fury from lefties & the bbc if Nigel Farage addressed a segregated audience ? Shameful in the present climate that labour panders to these sexist chumps in the chase for votes . It's 2015 for gods sake .

[Batman]

Can you imagine the fury from lefties & the bbc if Nigel Farage addressed a segregated audience ? Shameful in the present climate that labour panders to these sexist chumps in the chase for votes . It's 2015 for gods sake .

 

John McDonnell has branded Farage an 'evil force with society' as he divides people by race.....

 

Guess Nige should stick to gender division as that appears completely acceptable

[Orange]

John McDonnell has branded Farage an 'evil force with society' as he divides people by race.....

 

Guess Nige should stick to gender division as that appears completely acceptable

 

Unbelievable McDonnell has the gale to say that, but very typical of the left to throw around emotive sh*t instead of actually scrutinising concrete policy. Labour are the ones who play race politics, and i suspect it will get them across the line in Oldham. Did get a bit carried away and stuck a fiver on UKIP to win.

[Verbal]

Yet more evidence that Corbyn is leading Labour into the wilderness - and to an extent that is historically unprecedented. Data from the most recent YouGov poll, conducted last week, suggests the most damaging of conclusions:

 

Respondents from all demographic groups are united in their strong disapproval of Corbyn as Labour leader. Regardless of gender, age group, social class, region, education age, ethnicity or residential tenure, he is hugely unpopular in the country.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/nov/30/labour-losing-touch-public-opinion-research-suggests

 

Not even in the Foot wilderness years were things even remotely as bad as this.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Yet more evidence that Corbyn is leading Labour into the wilderness - and to an extent that is historically unprecedented. Data from the most recent YouGov poll, conducted last week, suggests the most damaging of conclusions:

 

Respondents from all demographic groups are united in their strong disapproval of Corbyn as Labour leader. Regardless of gender, age group, social class, region, education age, ethnicity or residential tenure, he is hugely unpopular in the country.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/nov/30/labour-losing-touch-public-opinion-research-suggests

 

Not even in the Foot wilderness years were things even remotely as bad as this.

Thats largely down to the Tory press that most people read and seemingly believe

 

I actually quite like his generally consensus/inclusive decisioon making approach eg giving Labour MPs a free vote on Syria

[buctootim]

Thats largely down to the Tory press that most people read and seemingly believe

 

I actually quite like his generally consensus/inclusive decisioon making approach eg giving Labour MPs a free vote on Syria

 

Me too. I also like the fact his views and policies aren't shaped by opinion polls but by conviction. He should get two years to persuade the country. Plenty of time for Cameron's bombing of Syria and austerity reversals to become a cluster****. If hes still behind then there is still two years to get a new leader before the election.

Edited 30 November, 2015 by buctootim

[Verbal]

Thats largely down to the Tory press that most people read and seemingly believe

 

I actually quite like his generally consensus/inclusive decisioon making approach eg giving Labour MPs a free vote on Syria

 

It's a familiarly arrogant Corbynist fantasy that any bad news for the object of their affections is always down to the evil "MSM", and that the voters are like easily led sheep who unlike the brilliant and wise Corbynists themselves simply don't engage with alternative media at all, or read quite plentiful pro-Corbyn material in the "MSM". I suppose the impending disaster in Oldham will also be down to the dumb-**** voters fooled by the "MSM".

 

And "his generally consensus/inclusive decision-making" on Syria? Corbyn has made it clear all along that his preference was to force the issue with a three-line whip. He backed down in the face of what a shadow minister - a "Tory-lite" no doubt - called a "riot" in this morning's shadow cabinet meeting.

 

Keep the faith - you're going to need it if you're going to wrap yourself up against evidence like the YouGov poll and what will unfold on Thursday.

[buctootim]

It's a familiarly arrogant Corbynist fantasy that any bad news for the object of their affections is always down to the evil "MSM", and that the voters are like easily led sheep who unlike the brilliant and wise Corbynists themselves simply don't engage with alternative media at all, or read quite plentiful pro-Corbyn material in the "MSM". I suppose the impending disaster in Oldham will also be down to the dumb-**** voters fooled by the "MSM".

 

And "his generally consensus/inclusive decision-making" on Syria? Corbyn has made it clear all along that his preference was to force the issue with a three-line whip. He backed down in the face of what a shadow minister - a "Tory-lite" no doubt - called a "riot" in this morning's shadow cabinet meeting.

 

Keep the faith - you're going to need it if you're going to wrap yourself up against evidence like the YouGov poll and what will unfold on Thursday.

 

Why do you make programmes? Would you still make them if you felt they influenced nobody? $600 billion spent every year on advertising, to no effect eh? what a waste.

[hypochondriac]

Why do you make programmes? Would you still make them if you felt they influenced nobody? $600 billion spent every year on advertising, to no effect eh? what a waste.

 

Of course it has an influence but that influence is grossly overestimated by corbynites desperate to blame labour's failings on anyone except jeremy corbyn.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

"Originally Posted by Horley CTFC Saint View Post

 

Thats largely down to the Tory that most people read and seemingly believe

 

I actually quite like his generally consensus/inclusive decisioon making approach eg giving Labour MPs a free vote on Syria"

 

It's a familiarly arrogant Corbynist fantasy that any bad news for the object of their affections is always down to the evil "MSM", and that the voters are like easily led sheep who unlike the brilliant and wise Corbynists themselves simply don't engage with alternative media at all, or read quite plentiful pro-Corbyn material in the "MSM". I suppose the impending disaster in Oldham will also be down to the dumb-**** voters fooled by the "MSM".

 

And "his generally consensus/inclusive decision-making" on Syria? Corbyn has made it clear all along that his preference was to force the issue with a three-line whip. He backed down in the face of what a shadow minister - a "Tory-lite" no doubt - called a "riot" in this morning's shadow cabinet meeting.

 

Keep the faith - you're going to need it if you're going to wrap yourself up against evidence like the YouGov poll and what will unfold on Thursday.

The fallacy here of course is that I'm not a Corbynite, I'm a dyed in the wool LibDem. but its good to have a real choice as politics had become just differing shades of blue until Corbyn with little real interest in the good of the people

[Verbal]

Why do you make programmes? Would you still make them if you felt they influenced nobody? $600 billion spent every year on advertising, to no effect eh? what a waste.

 

I'd have to be Joseph ****ing Goebbels to produce the effects you're talking about: an "MSM" so unbelievably powerful and of one voice that it could reduce Labour to the lowest levels of public support in more than a century.

 

It's worth repeating the finding of the YouGov poll so that it sinks in a little deeper with you than it evidently has: "Respondents from all demographic groups are united in their strong disapproval of Corbyn as Labour leader. Regardless of gender, age group, social class, region, education age, ethnicity or residential tenure, he is hugely unpopular in the country."

 

Give Corbyn a little credit: he's blundered into destroying Labour as an effective opposition all by himself. If he had any help, it wasn't the "MSM" but the Spartist cretins surrounding him, like Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Seumas Milne, Andrew Fisher and Simon Fletcher. A more dismal bunch of far-left back-room aggressors it is hard to imagine - who've manipulated a major party into espousing views only uttered previously in extremist sects capable of delivering about 2,000 votes nationwide. It's the Day of the Political Triffids.

 

Oh, and why do you think it's clever to back up your assertion about the "effectiveness" of Russian bombing with links to the Putin-funded Russia Today? You do realise you're saying that the Kremlin's campaign is working because the Kremlin says so, right? And when did you become pap, who if I remember correctly you called autistic? This was his tactic - spouting propaganda straight out of Putin's mouthpieces to justify Russian action. And, finally, isn't it morally bankrupt to assert, as per the principles-averse Corbynists, that precision bombing by the West is so much more reprehensible than carpet bombing by the Russians?

 

As I say, there IS a debate to be had about military intervention in Syria and what form it should take: but so pathetic are Labour now as an opposition that it is not being articulated. We're now dependent on dissident Tories and a much more disciplined SNP to keep Cameron even vaguely honest.

 

The fallacy here of course is that I'm not a Corbynite, I'm a dyed in the wool LibDem. but its good to have a real choice as politics had become just differing shades of blue until Corbyn with little real interest in the good of the people

 

Not a fallacy of mine then as I didn't single you out as a Corbynist, just as someone gullible enough to resort to Corbynist tropes. The "real choice" is another of those ludicrous arguments that supposes that, before Corbyn, Labour was some kind of "Red Tory" party. Funny, then, that the very policies that Corbynists hopelessly claim to have defended, like tax credits, were put on the statute book by the very people now being lambasted as "Tory-lite scum".

 

And how can a "dyed-in-the-wool" LibDem have the gall to talk about "choice" when your party, having proclaimed "choice" in the 2010 election, promptly colluded in condemning and entire generation of students in England and Wales to lifelong crippling debt?

 

So if you don't mind, you can wish for Labour to be reduced to an incompetent, malicious rump - more presumably to mirror the Lib Dems in their current state - but I as a lifelong Labour supporter wish to have a party back that is at least trying to be a popular, responsible, social democratic party committed to social justice. Corbyn is no "choice" for me, nor is it for the former Labour voters who've deserted the party in droves at the prospect of the ludicrous posturing of Corbyn.

[Jonnyboy]

I'm confused, are these traitorous looney lefties called Corbynists, Corbynites or Corbynistas?

 

Also why are the Righties on here so angry about him? You'd think his dismal failure would allow Farage and the Tory right to control the country and push all their own preferred policies through. Happy days.

[buctootim]

I'd have to be Joseph ****ing Goebbels to produce the effects you're talking about: an "MSM" so unbelievably powerful and of one voice that it could reduce Labour to the lowest levels of public support in more than a century.

 

It's worth repeating the finding of the YouGov poll so that it sinks in a little deeper with you than it evidently has: "Respondents from all demographic groups are united in their strong disapproval of Corbyn as Labour leader. Regardless of gender, age group, social class, region, education age, ethnicity or residential tenure, he is hugely unpopular in the country."

 

Give Corbyn a little credit: he's blundered into destroying Labour as an effective opposition all by himself. If he had any help, it wasn't the "MSM" but the Spartist cretins surrounding him, like Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Seumas Milne, Andrew Fisher and Simon Fletcher. A more dismal bunch of far-left back-room aggressors it is hard to imagine - who've manipulated a major party into espousing views only uttered previously in extremist sects capable of delivering about 2,000 votes nationwide. It's the Day of the Political Triffids.

 

Oh, and why do you think it's clever to back up your assertion about the "effectiveness" of Russian bombing with links to the Putin-funded Russia Today? You do realise you're saying that the Kremlin's campaign is working because the Kremlin says so, right? And when did you become pap, who if I remember correctly you called autistic? This was his tactic - spouting propaganda straight out of Putin's mouthpieces to justify Russian action. And, finally, isn't it morally bankrupt to assert, as per the principles-averse Corbynists, that precision bombing by the West is so much more reprehensible than carpet bombing by the Russians?

 

As I say, there IS a debate to be had about military intervention in Syria and what form it should take: but so pathetic are Labour now as an opposition that it is not being articulated. We're now dependent on dissident Tories and a much more disciplined SNP to keep Cameron even vaguely honest.

 

 

 

Not a fallacy of mine then as I didn't single you out as a Corbynist, just as someone gullible enough to resort to Corbynist tropes. The "real choice" is another of those ludicrous arguments that supposes that, before Corbyn, Labour was some kind of "Red Tory" party. Funny, then, that the very policies that Corbynists hopelessly claim to have defended, like tax credits, were put on the statute book by the very people now being lambasted as "Tory-lite scum".

 

And how can a "dyed-in-the-wool" LibDem have the gall to talk about "choice" when your party, having proclaimed "choice" in the 2010 election, promptly colluded in condemning and entire generation of students in England and Wales to lifelong crippling debt?

 

So if you don't mind, you can wish for Labour to be reduced to an incompetent, malicious rump - more presumably to mirror the Lib Dems in their current state - but I as a lifelong Labour supporter wish to have a party back that is at least trying to be a popular, responsible, social democratic party committed to social justice. Corbyn is no "choice" for me, nor is it for the former Labour voters who've deserted the party in droves at the prospect of the ludicrous posturing of Corbyn.

 

 

I like it when you're hysterical. It amuses me. I suggest you check the polls, Labour support has actually increased since Corbyn's election as leader.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

[Jonnyboy]

75% of Labour members opposed to airstrikes in Syria:http://www.thecanary.co/2015/11/30/much-corbyn-crisis-syria-labour-unite-behind-will-people/

[buctootim]

Good article here. Voices from Raqqa, tell MPs to vote 'no'.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/29/raqqa-exiles-bashar-al-assad-isis-bombing

 

“Can someone really be happy if his city is bombed by everyone? No,” Abu Ahmad said, with the bleak humour that many exiles share. “Everybody bombed Raqqa. Anyone who was just annoyed by their wife decided to come and bomb Raqqa. Jordan, UAE, US, Russia, France.”

 

They fear that more bombs will cost more innocent lives in a city where the civilian population is now held prisoner by Isis to serve as a human shield. Many are baffled and frustrated that the city’s fate is being decided in distant capitals and conference rooms where the people of Raqqa have no presence, in debates where they have no voice.

 

They worry there is only a slim chance of dislodging Isis without ground troops but no obvious options to march on the city, because the opposition is a jumble of weak local militias and Kurds unwelcome in a mostly Arab city.

 

“People don’t like Isis at all, but if Kurdish forces come with the coalition to displace them they are both bad, and maybe some will think the least bad is Isis, so you are pushing them to join Isis,” said a nurse who reluctantly left Raqqa this autumn after the group tried to arrest him, although he still doesn’t really know why he came under suspicion.

 

They see hypocrisy from an international community that ignored the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians at the hands of their own government for years, then was apparently spurred into action by Isis killings of Europeans and Americans.

 

“Why is this just in response to Isis? Why was no one moved when the regime was bombing us in Syria? Is it just because [terror] came to western countries? For us, it doesn’t matter which bombs are killing us,” said Mona, a teacher and activist who fled from Isis James Bond-style over the rooftops of her neighbourhood.

Edited 30 November, 2015 by buctootim

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Not a fallacy of mine then as I didn't single you out as a Corbynist, just as someone gullible enough to resort to Corbynist tropes. The "real choice" is another of those ludicrous arguments that supposes that, before Corbyn, Labour was some kind of "Red Tory" party. Funny, then, that the very policies that Corbynists hopelessly claim to have defended, like tax credits, were put on the statute book by the very people now being lambasted as "Tory-lite scum".

 

And how can a "dyed-in-the-wool" LibDem have the gall to talk about "choice" when your party, having proclaimed "choice" in the 2010 election, promptly colluded in condemning and entire generation of students in England and Wales to lifelong crippling debt?

 

So if you don't mind, you can wish for Labour to be reduced to an incompetent, malicious rump - more presumably to mirror the Lib Dems in their current state - but I as a lifelong Labour supporter wish to have a party back that is at least trying to be a popular, responsible, social democratic party committed to social justice. Corbyn is no "choice" for me, nor is it for the former Labour voters who've deserted the party in droves at the prospect of the ludicrous posturing of Corbyn.

The fallacy is I don't have to keep the faith as I am not a Corbynist and have no axe to grind here so my perspective is from an outsider's viewpoint (one that doesn't take the comments of our auspicious press as gospel).

 

As for your comments about the LibDems you do understand that one of the unfortunate constants of any coalition is compromise?! Which is not necessarily to say that I agree with Nick.

[cambsaint]

So if you don't mind, you can wish for Labour to be reduced to an incompetent, malicious rump - more presumably to mirror the Lib Dems in their current state - but I as a lifelong Labour supporter wish to have a party back that is at least trying to be a popular, responsible, social democratic party committed to social justice. Corbyn is no "choice" for me, nor is it for the former Labour voters who've deserted the party in droves at the prospect of the ludicrous posturing of Corbyn.

 

I agree with the above completely. There is a sensible debate to be had about moving away from New Labour and B Liar's reign, which made me tear up my membership card in disgust.

Unfortunately Corbyn is not the answer either. He is totally unelectable as far as many English and Welsh voters are concerned, his pacificist and anti-royalist attitudes are anathema to many to begin with. These are viciously exploited by the Tory scum press, but that is a fact of life any Labour politician with real expectation of being electable has to face. His naivity in dealiing with these is nothing short of incredible.

Over the past few years inequality has increased alarmingly, and the young are getting a disgraceful deal.

When I was young we had excellent education, generous student grants (admittedly both selective-but a large number of my fellow Grammar school students came from council house and lower income families). Money is now creating an even more unequal society by private education.

Council houses were available to those who couldn't afford housing. It was relatively easy to buy a house, and my first house was in Lordswood and there was a wide social mix of buyers. Nowadays almost all of my friends have had to help their children on to the housing ladder, as it requires a massive income to buy in more expensive areas.

Admittedly the young enjoy low interest rates, but these have also been one of the main drivers of the buy to let market.

Surely there is a young Labour MP who can effectively draw the old themes of fairness, equality of opportunity, good social welfare, while ensuring sound economics and not being anti-business (apart from the those like the disgusting usurers ), while ensuring a sensible defence policy.

I also miss the presence of labour MPs who had come up via the Unions and knew what it was like to do a proper job. We now seem to be stuck with students from a narrow range of degrees and predominantly middle class upbringings who go straight into politics with no other life experience. (Even the old Hampshire Tory MPs -public school, officer in the services, something in the City, then safe Tory seat had more experience of life outside "The Westminster Bubble" than the current appalling young politicians.

Also I am the same age as Corbyn, and to even consider taking on the stresses of leading a serious political party let alone fighting a General election at 72, and God forbid being PM strikes me as insane.

He could however do a good job by standing aside and ensuring the Party moves to the centre left as a social democratic party with a conscience.

[hypochondriac]

Corbyn is 66...

[Coxford_lou]

Good article here. Voices from Raqqa, tell MPs to vote 'no'.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/29/raqqa-exiles-bashar-al-assad-isis-bombing

 

“Can someone really be happy if his city is bombed by everyone? No,” Abu Ahmad said, with the bleak humour that many exiles share. “Everybody bombed Raqqa. Anyone who was just annoyed by their wife decided to come and bomb Raqqa. Jordan, UAE, US, Russia, France.”

 

They fear that more bombs will cost more innocent lives in a city where the civilian population is now held prisoner by Isis to serve as a human shield. Many are baffled and frustrated that the city’s fate is being decided in distant capitals and conference rooms where the people of Raqqa have no presence, in debates where they have no voice.

 

They worry there is only a slim chance of dislodging Isis without ground troops but no obvious options to march on the city, because the opposition is a jumble of weak local militias and Kurds unwelcome in a mostly Arab city.

 

“People don’t like Isis at all, but if Kurdish forces come with the coalition to displace them they are both bad, and maybe some will think the least bad is Isis, so you are pushing them to join Isis,” said a nurse who reluctantly left Raqqa this autumn after the group tried to arrest him, although he still doesn’t really know why he came under suspicion.

 

They see hypocrisy from an international community that ignored the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians at the hands of their own government for years, then was apparently spurred into action by Isis killings of Europeans and Americans.

 

“Why is this just in response to Isis? Why was no one moved when the regime was bombing us in Syria? Is it just because [terror] came to western countries? For us, it doesn’t matter which bombs are killing us,” said Mona, a teacher and activist who fled from Isis James Bond-style over the rooftops of her neighbourhood.

 

I'm going to continue the quote you've pasted as it's significant:

 

They see hypocrisy from an international community that ignored the deaths of tens of thousands of Syrians at the hands of their own government for years, then was apparently spurred into action by Isis killings of Europeans and Americans.

 

“Why is this just in response to Isis? Why was no one moved when the regime was bombing us in Syria? Is it just because [terror] came to western countries? For us, it doesn’t matter which bombs are killing us,” said Mona, a teacher and activist who fled from Isis James Bond-style over the rooftops of her neighbourhood.

 

Most of all, the Raqqa exiles worry that western and Russian definitions of victory will mean removing one tormentor to give free rein to another, President Bashar al-Assad. Many of Raqqa’s exiles spent time in his prisons as well as in Isis jails, and see him as the main cause of their misery.

 

“If I went to the UK parliament to make a speech, the first thing I would say is ask them to remove the cause [of our problems], which is Assad, not the symptom which is Isis,” said Abu Ahmad. “Hundreds of thousands of people died in the last few years, and no one came to bomb Damascus.”

 

The overwhelming majority of people killed in Syria - hundreds of thousands - has been at the hands of their own Government. So this Syrian is asking a fair question. From what I've read, many Syrians want a no fly zone imposed (note, it's easy to assume that by saying no bombs, they mean no action from the West, but I really don't think that's the case).

 

Whether or not bombing is the right approach needs consideration (although my understanding is what the UK offers is more accurate precision bombing than the coalition currently has). But taking no action, is morally reprehensible. In my opinion.

[Coxford_lou]

Sorry, I've not formatted that well, and I can't edit. The last two paras are my words, not pasted from the article.

[buctootim]

The overwhelming majority of people killed in Syria - hundreds of thousands - has been at the hands of their own Government. So this Syrian is asking a fair question. From what I've read, many Syrians want a no fly zone imposed (note, it's easy to assume that by saying no bombs, they mean no action from the West, but I really don't think that's the case).

 

Whether or not bombing is the right approach needs consideration (although my understanding is what the UK offers is more accurate precision bombing than the coalition currently has). But taking no action, is morally reprehensible. In my opinion.

 

I agree doing nothing is not an option but I don't know what the solution is. I'd be interested to hear more from within Syria. What I do know is that more bombing in the absence of a meaningful plan for starving IS of funds, weapons and recruits is not the answer.

 

Bombs are bombs. They may get more precise when properly programmed but unless you have spotters on the ground giving good intelligence on targets and accurate GPS locations its largely meaningless. In any event IS seem to be moving into a network of tunnels below ground. That means bigger bombs with bigger blast radius. Even if they are spot on target the blast doesn't stop at the intended targets perimeter - so you will still the kill the boys unfortunate to be near the empty IS car.

[CB Fry]

Corbyn is 66...

"Fighting a general election at 72", ie four years time.

 

Obviously he won't be leader then anyway. Originally I gave him until the conference of 2017 but now I'd be amazed if he lasts beyond the elections next May. He's worse than my lowest expectations and probably will go down as the worst leader of any British political party in history.

Edited 1 December, 2015 by CB Fry

[hutch]

75% of Labour members opposed to airstrikes in Syria:http://www.thecanary.co/2015/11/30/much-corbyn-crisis-syria-labour-unite-behind-will-people/

82,000 is less than 25% of Labour members.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

82,000 is less than 25% of Labour members.

 

To be fair the rabid left are far more politically active - they always have to have something to complain about, and Corbyn is giving them their platform.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

This latest Labour farrago - with the party simultaneously both for and against bombing Syria - is of course entirely predictable as the gaping attitudinal gulf that exists between the majority of Labour MP's, and the new leader few of them really wanted, remains unbridgeable. This situation makes habitual Tory in-fighting over Europe seem a almost trivial pursuit in comparison.

 

Sooner or later either Corbyn will have to go, or perhaps his 'New Model Army' of grass-roots activists will have to transform the parliamentary party into something than more closely resembles their hard line politics - and that process would surely be a brutal one. The future of our nation may well rest upon the outcome of this battle.

[scotty]

This latest Labour farrago - with the party simultaneously both for and against bombing Syria - is of course entirely predictable as the gaping attitudinal gulf that exists between the majority of Labour MP's, and the new leader few of them really wanted, remains unbridgeable. This situation makes habitual Tory in-fighting over Europe seem a almost trivial pursuit in comparison.

 

Sooner or later either Corbyn will have to go, or perhaps his 'New Model Army' of grass-roots activists will have to transform the parliamentary party into something than more closely resembles their hard line politics - and that process would surely be a brutal one. The future of our nation may well rest upon the outcome of this battle.

 

My take on it is that labour are biding their time, and that corbyn is a stopgap until they decide whether or not they want to get into downing street next time. Fixed-term parliaments have focussed this approach, although obviously the governing party still have an edge. If the labour hierarchy decide they do actually want to win it, corbyn will be out quicker than you can say "landslide"; if he's still there come the next election we can safely assume they don't want it. Much the same as shoehorning in the clearly unelectable ed miliband instead of his clearly electable brother.

[Batman]

"Fighting a general election at 72", ie four years time.

 

Obviously he won't be leader then anyway. Originally I gave him until the conference of 2017 but now I'd be amazed if he lasts beyond the elections next May. He's worse than my lowest expectations and probably will go down as the worst leader of any British political party in history.

 

it is lining up like a set piece for him to 'resign' out of priniciple.

[Johnny Bognor]

Also why are the Righties on here so angry about him? You'd think his dismal failure would allow Farage and the Tory right to control the country and push all their own preferred policies through. Happy days.

 

Because most normal people want to see an effective opposition. It's good for politics. It's good for the country. Cameron and Osbourne have a free reign at the moment, but an effective opposition forces them to stay on point with policy and not to go too far. It is one thing I liked about the coalition. The Lib Dems did keep the tories in check. They had a balancing effect and balance is what is needed in these tough times. If your politics are right of centre, it doesn't mean that you disagee with everything left of centre. But right now, there is no left of centre. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and the country is worse off for it. So I genuinely hope Labour sort themselves out, because the Lib Dems aint up to much these days.

[buctootim]

Because most normal people want to see an effective opposition. It's good for politics. It's good for the country. Cameron and Osbourne have a free reign at the moment, but an effective opposition forces them to stay on point with policy and not to go too far. It is one thing I liked about the coalition. The Lib Dems did keep the tories in check. They had a balancing effect and balance is what is needed in these tough times. If your politics are right of centre, it doesn't mean that you disagee with everything left of centre. But right now, there is no left of centre. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and the country is worse off for it. So I genuinely hope Labour sort themselves out, because the Lib Dems aint up to much these days.

 

Despite all the hoohah and drama in the media actual polling figures for Labour are barely changed, slightly up under Corbyn in fact. The Tory lead has extended a bit, but thats because of a drop in support for the LDs and UKIP, not Labour.

 

Corbyn is presenting a an alternative vision to that of the Conservatives. Surely that is just as effective opposition as cheese paring 1 degree differences on policy.

[shurlock]

Because most normal people want to see an effective opposition. It's good for politics. It's good for the country. Cameron and Osbourne have a free reign at the moment, but an effective opposition forces them to stay on point with policy and not to go too far. It is one thing I liked about the coalition. The Lib Dems did keep the tories in check. They had a balancing effect and balance is what is needed in these tough times. If your politics are right of centre, it doesn't mean that you disagee with everything left of centre. But right now, there is no left of centre. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and the country is worse off for it. So I genuinely hope Labour sort themselves out, because the Lib Dems aint up to much these days.

 

Does a free reign mean making concessions on cuts and tax credits?

 

The Tories have a majority. End of. Its a fact of life in majoritarian systems that governments generally don't need to listen to the opposition. An effective Labour party might enrich the debate but its strict political power is nada. Governing parties have more to fear from their own backbenches. And as far as enriching the debate, there are multiple ways in which this happens in an established democracy anyway -none of which will be obvious to the simpletons on here who appear to measure performance against the quality of an opposition leader's #bantz on PMQs.

 

Dare I say it, the SNP's electoral success -as well as Corbyn's victory- has crystallized in Tories' minds the fact that there is clear opposition to austerity in the country (to return to the first example), and combined with Osborne's instinctive sensitivity to public opinion, induced some flexibility, albeit at the very, very margins.

Edited 1 December, 2015 by shurlock